tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 21, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
fletcher about the future of electric cars. and tom jawetz on the supreme decision host: good morning, everyone. withgin here this morning the situation in flint, michigan. the water crisis there and the role the government played at every level to lead to the contamination of the water. what are your thoughts on this this morning? central part of the country, you dial in at 202-748-8000. mountain pacific, 202-748-8001. michigan residents, 202-748-8002 . you can also join us on twitter
@c-spanwj. we will get fewer thoughts in just a second. first-come i want to begin with the flint come in michigan mayor. -- flint, michigan mayor. this is what she had to say about the frustration her city feels. >> it is a poor community and our voices were not hurt. that is part of the problem. this has been going on for two years. .he community forgot about this they marched and pastors got together and it was not until marchers from virginia tech were coming and that people started listening to what we were saying. that took a year for us to be heard. i was glad that she brought attention to this and made that
comment. that is why the state in the national naacp got together and put out a statement as well. this is a civil right, water is a basic human right. everyone deserves clean water. host: that was the mayor of flint, michigan. she was talking in washington yesterday. the mayors held a news conference where she was asked about the water situation in flint, michigan. he saw a protester standing there protesting what happened in chicago. with the shooting of laquan mcdonald. just so you know why that protester was there. we want to ask you this morning about the role the government played in this flint water crisis. we have a line for michigan residents. we divided the lines regionally. first, joining us on the phone is jonathan, state politics reporter for the detroit news.
i want you to explain to our level, come at every where did the government fail that led to the contamination of the water? guest: who made the decision to switch over, which is somewhat open to debate. and how the water was treated. when the city did switch to a new source of water in april of 2014. there was a vote by the local city council to switch over to a new water system. there was no decision to use the flint river in the interim. when the flint city council did vote to make that switch, the city was under control of the state appointed emergency manager. it allows the governor to appoint them to basically run the city, run certain cities in financial distress. even though the city council did
sign off on that change, it did not have any authority to do so. the state did make the final call. what happened once that switch did occur? there is no confirmation at the state department of environmental quality failed to ensure that proper corrosion controls were added to that water. leachedh river water led out of old aging pipes. there's evidence that at least did try toat the epa warn people about the situation back in april of 2015. this was a year after the waters which had been made. was alert from the epa essentially sort of ignored.
the epa did not intervene at that time as quickly as it should have. said, there were failures at all levels of government. apologized,vernor said he would release his e-mails. he did so yesterday. have you had a chance to go through them? there's over 270 pages of e-mails and memos and documents that viewers can find on the governor's website. the very first e-mail is completely redacted. guest: that is correct. -- first e-mail is actually that there was a note on the cover page that that was part of a legal proceeding. was one of the heavily redacted e-mails in that batch.
there's only a handful of e-mails from the governor himself. a lot of his communication probably occurred off-line on this topic. there was a like seven e-mails the actually -- the governor actually sent. most were e-mails sent to him. from people inside and outside his administration, dealing with flint as a whole, not just the water crisis. one of the most telling e-mails was the governor's then chief of staff saying "i'm not sure why people are blaming the state government except for the fact that our treasurer did ultimately make the final call to approve the switch to a new which set this a series of events that led to the crisis the city is in now. host: now, the city faces a lawsuit. what is going on there? guest: there's a series of
class-action lawsuits that have been filed. two more this week. saying they've been exposed to lifelong effects. lead may only stay in your but itfor days or weeks is irreversible and can cause long-term cognitive issues and things of that nature. even if the water is improving and residents are still told not to drink the water -- even if the quality does improve, people could potentially be facing serious issues for years to come. they will be seeking significant damages from the state as a result. host: what is next? guest: the governor in his state of the state address outl
ined a plan to start dealing with this crisis and called for $20 million in supplemental funding from the state legislature, which had already approved 9.3 million back in october. that is just the tip of the iceberg here. for bottleding water for flint residents to use, for filters to install on their cap speared the bigger issue will be trying to replace this underground infrastructure with butaged to begin has now been damaged. to be a problem. at that price tech will be much, much larger. it remains to be seen how much of a role the state, the city or federal government will play in helping replace some of those lead pipes. one point $5 billion to
replace the aging water infrastructure. thank you for setting up this conversation. -- $1.5 billion. bob in westminster, maryland. what do you think of all this? caller: good morning. i would say that this is yet another example of government doing a job and doing it poorly where a private utility would be afraid of the civil liabilities and therefore would be doing things like buffering the ph of the water to keep the ionic activity of the lead from becoming a problem. secondly, they would have informed the community that the plumbing was substandard. the hazards of lead are well known and well documented. lead when they did not
fully understand what was going to happen. government has a tendency to be rather slow in responding to a problem and generally does not get into the really technical aspects of these things. you have a private utility running at that generally provides an eddie lower cost -- at a lower cost, they will be very careful about the quality. they have chemists on board a checking these things continually. host: do you think they would provide it equally in all neighborhoods? depending on who lives on those neighborhoods -- in those neighborhoods. caller: i'm speaking of providing the water treatment. as far as the infrastructure, that does clearly belong to the municipality. i would believe that he utility would be warning the community and the government of the problem with leadpipe. atrocity thatute
this leadpipe has been in place for all these years and nothing has been done. it is nothing to do with current administration. it has to do with an ongoing problem. you finally kick into high gear when you change the ph of the water supply. don in pittsburg, kansas. what do you think? there is a long-term division in michigan -- the southeastern part of the state is progressive, democratic leaning. rick snyder represents the southwestern portion of the state with the extreme right-wing. he doesn't want to see any sort of successful government services. flint emergency manager was appointed. he had dictatorial powers, he made a very poor penny wise decision to switch over.
they'd been using city of detroit water for decades because they knew that water was no good in the flint river. there were immediate health problems as an is the flint water was used. people reported rashes, losing their hair. there are laws in the clean water act for corrosion control, which were not implemented. the state department led the charge to make sure that no corrosion control was used. it was a foolish operation. 6000 children are potentially this will potentially have mental retardation by being exposed to the stuff for two years. who will pay for them? flint had old plumbing for decades. huron,ed water from lake a very good water source.
the costs could be in the billions. no one can pay for this. and kid was driving along had a joint in his car, he could be pulled over and they could confiscate his car, take his house, do all kinds of stuff to him. because he is a rich, powerful, well-connected political host, they will escape. they should be sent to high-security prisons. host: are you a republican or democrat? caller: i'm an independent. i grew up in michigan, i grew up in detroit. there have been a number of outrageous operations in detroit over the last few years. thatity had a public park was given to them by jean-claude back in 1916 that was tightly -- he wanted the city to have the park. the park was stolen by far
right-wingers who run the whirlpool corporation led by fred upton. they still had their headquarters there. they turned it over to the new nicholas golf course. host: raymond in southfield, michigan. morning to you. bad.r: it is i have a different thought -- i'm worried about the fast food thaturants and hospitals were getting water from flint. --onald's and the hospitals
what happens with that? host: there's news reports that hospitals were saying the water they were using to clean their instruments was damaging their instruments. they had to start bringing in a different water source. caller: the governor should have gm said we will not use the flint water system. the joint water system was the best in the country. for him to do this, it is bad. host: the washington post editorial board says this --
he is hiding behind the flint thing. the controversy is horrific. rahm emanuel, you need to go back to chicago and take care of your own. pat in fenton, michigan. fenton, michigan is just south of flint, it is a suburb. i was born and raised in flint, michigan. it was a gm town for years. the people of flint were very lucky to have carol stewart mott as the godfather of flint. the community education program was created in flint. downgeneral motors went and pulled all the plants, including buick come out of , flint became a town just
like detroit. thewould not believe conditions of the schools, let alone what happened now with the water. host: that is part of the story, too. crisis into cities tests michigan's governor. -- crisis in two cities. teachers trying to put an injunction to stop the teachers -- caller: we have the same thing in flint.
many of the older schools have been in the process of being torn down as part of the blight legislation. flint really and truly needs help from the state. they don't get it because of the republican congress and republican governor. they come in and take over cities, they took over several and put emergency managers in place. then, we have a decision like the one to save a little money that we will start using the flint river for water again. for years, the industrial plant dumped waste into the flint river. said one story today everyone knew that the flint river was notoriously dirty. caller: yes. all the people that lived in flint that. all the people that lived around flint knew that. that was a decision made an general motors quit using flint water because it was damaging
the plants. if they knew, i'm sure there were others in power that new. of thehat did you make governor asking for $28 million for flint the residencies? caller: that will be a drop in the bucket because there's infrastructure that has to be replaced. on the east side of flint, those homes that were built years and years ago, some of those rgm homes, company houses, the plumbing there is the oldest plumbing in the area. that all has to be torn up and the people that live in those homes are already having a tough time making ends meet. they don't have the money to completely replace their plumbing. that we learned last week if you are responsible for the
pipe that leads to the public service line when it's on your property line, you have to pay for the paying job from led to copper -- caller: they will have to replace the pipes. timeline usa a today put together. what does the federal state of emergency mean for flint? some $5 million in federal aid has been freed up to immediately assist with the water crisis. president obama did to deny
snyder's request for a disaster declaration. in tall site, oklahoma. -- tulsa, oklahoma. caller: it is a failure of government at all levels. water in every city come every town is local. the water supply is a local issue. everywhere in this country. how in the world do we get it to where the federal government has to come in to use taxpayers money from every other city that handles their own water and make it a crisis? this is a crisis. governmento local first. councilr and the city are all screaming that the
governor did it. yet, there is blood on their hands and there is blood on never once hands -- everyone's hands that's involved in this mess. it's all about government not serving the people. so, people have to look at that. you have to start locally. city is inouncil and control of the water supply initially. and turn it over to others don't want the responsibility, yet they poison their own people. in holton, michigan. state?s that in the caller: in the upper peninsula on the far north. 10 miles from lake superior. host: tell us your thoughts. caller: i just had a question.
thank you for taking my call. i was wondering if you know what is in the water. what is causing the corrosive reaction to the infrastructure? can you get somebody to report on what exactly is in the water? host: i'm not sure. usa today did put this together. lead level comparisons. flint, michigan compared with detroit. this is in parts per billion. five is a con for concern. in flint,o 27 michigan. -- five is a cause for concern.
let me ask you this. do you trust your government in michigan? caller: sometimes. host: sometimes? what do you mean? caller: it is complicated. jamie in michigan. same question to you. do you trust your government in michigan? caller: no, i don't. he released some e-mails but did not release 2013. that's when they started making the decision. he appointed emergency managers in different cities, detroit, that, all those cities were financially in trouble. he already cut funding for these cities. the funding should have went to the city's.
that would've taken care of their infrastructure. they switched to the flint river water, which has high salt content. which goes through the water pipes, the lead started leaching. they were notified and told over and over. gm stopped using the water because it was corroding their parts. the hospitals quit using it because it was contaminating their equipment. the emergency manager and governor snyder are responsible. when he put the emergency managers and, they had total, unconditional power. the only reported to the governor. the em has been transferred, he has been promoted to the schools of detroit.
he's got total power there. the schools in detroit for the last six years have been under the emergency managers. they've got mold in those schools, they have to mushrooms growing in those schools. the buildings are falling down. the teachers are trying to get something done for the children. it is not for them, it is for the kids. there is no way i would put my child in a school that had mold and it. that is bad for asthma and bad for a lot of other diseases. let's listen to what the governor had to say in the state of the state address. >> i would like to address the people of flint. the families spacing crisis. a crisis you did not create and could not a prevented.
i want to speak honestly and sincerely to let you know we are praying for you, we are working hard for you and we are absolutely committed to taking the right steps to effectively solve this crisis. to you, the people of flint, i say tonight, i'm sorry and i will fix it. of this greatnd state should do in during this kind of catastrophe. government failed you. -- no citizen of this great enduring thisbe in du kind of catastrophe. you deserve accountability, you deserve to know that the buck stops here with me. you deserve to know the truth. i have a responsibility to tell the truth.
the truth about what we've done and what we will do to overcome this challenge. tomorrow, i will release my 2014 and 2015 e-mails regarding flint to you, the citizens must say you will have answers to your questions about what we've done and what we are doing to make things right. anyone will be able to read this information for themselves. the most important thing we can do right now is to work hard and work together for the people of flint. that was the governor apologizing, promising he will fix it. there's been calls for him to resign. he wants to try to fix the problem. president obama was in detroit yesterday feeling the recovery of the auto industry in that state. he also spoke briefly about the situation in flint. beside he would be
himself with the children being exposed to lead. jamie in clarkston, michigan. good morning to you. you are on the air. caller: governor snyder is a liar. he's not going to fix anything. he will get up there and tell speeches. he is nothing but a liar. petition and put it on the ballot. we voted the eem out. he reinstated it with the money value. what do you think should happen, then? should he step down? caller: yes, he should resign. he should be prosecuted. to turn overmade every one of his e-mails from the time he got in office. he's done nothing but try to destroy michigan ever since he's been in their. he's been a dictator. the legislature goes along with them.
their hands are as dirty as his because they went around the people of michigan. .e voted against the em and put aound us money value on that and put it to where we could not petition to have it voted again host:. are you a democrat or republican? caller: that don't matter. i'm a citizen of michigan. i love the state. i adopted this estate as my home state. wondering come on anytion day, will you vote incumbents out of office? caller: yes, i will could i will work to try to get them out of office. i voted for both parties. i love my state and i want is to come back to what it used to be. in eau claire--
caller: i'm not one to call in, but when i heard the guy from oklahoma singh blood is on the local citizens and hearing snyder lying up there, i'm basically an independent but this makes me a democrat from now on. does he not remember that the story has been in michigan for months and months -- there was discussion of some type of filtering process. they said you don't need it. this was a government decision. people have no say over what happens, especially when you m.ve an e in benton harbor, we had one. flint, i don't see what good they did it all.
even a local person would say, what about the lead factor? the pediatrician they demonized because she tried to bring this the journalists that kept bringing it to light. those people would still be in that situation. now, he's apologizing for two months later when they've known he'several months -- apologizing 14 months later. moneyon't want to spend where people are poor and where it's not going to benefit him. he is a terrible governor. stay theree made to until he goes out of office and account for all of this. if you make him resign, who takes over? his lieutenant governor. what difference will that make?
researcher with virginia tech with a freedom of ledrmation request that was to other people being aware of what was happening in flint, michigan. in addition to that pediatrician that elizabeth mentioned. we believe the conversation here for now. we will return to it later on in the program. we want to share with you from the washington times, what happened on capitol hill yesterday. the senate is in this week. ae democrats launched filibuster that the republicans were unable to overcome to block the president's syrian refugee program. ted cruz and marco rubio return from the campaign trail to take a boat on that. -- to take a vote on that.
pamela be joined by fletcher to talk about her role in designing electric vehicles. the supreme court will review president obama's executive action on immigration. we will talk to the center for american progress about whether or not this executive action will stand before the court. ♪ >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. weinning monday, february 1, were pre-caucus coverage taking your
phone calls, tweets and text. live coverage of the republican caucus. , live coverage of the democratic caucus. joined in on the conversation on c-span radio and www.c-span.org. >> as i've been watching the campaign this year, it's interesting to look at the republicans more so than the democratic side. that may have something to do with why there is more interest in these candidates and their books. lozada discusses books written by the 2016 presidential candidates. >> each one does have interesting stories in their lives. when they put out these memoirs,
they are sanitized. vetted, therefore minimum controversy. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with pamela fletcher, the executive chief engineer for gm's electrified vehicles. thank you for being here to talk about the future of electric cars. where does this technology stand right now? ev is a perfect example of where the technology stance. the firstpresents is long-range affordable battery electric vehicle. more than 200 miles appear electric range. federal tax0 after
incentives. how does the technology work? how has it improved since first introducing electric cars? guest: the battery is the part that gets the most attention. labave the largest battery of any automaker. 80,000 square feet at our engineering facility in war and, michigan. ren, michigan. as well as working with our suppliers and tech partners on finding those advances in the performance and functionality and also the cost is very important. , california is our biggest market. we see that continuing to expand. around andas you go
see the smiles of greater and greater acceptance. host: are people buying them? guest: we have over 80,000 customers with our generation one chevrolet volt. consumers haveus shown themselves to be the most satisfied in the industry. power andd by jd consumer reports. thismers that get into love them. we see our first generation owners coming back for more. host: how is general motors and other companies going to react to this headline in usa today? oil is cheap, below $30 a barrel. gas is cheap. are using people move away from electric cars?
is -- weneral motors have products for everyone. , we haveple want suvs great full-size utilities. over 80,000 we have owners that most of them frankly say they do want to use gasoline at any price. -- do not want to use gasoline at any price. host: here's the headline from green car reports. they are incentivized people in germany to buy electric cars. are there incentives from the government in this country? should there be more? guest: we all have a role in advancing transportation. we have great partnerships out there showing how we can work together to make changes we all
think are important. initiative around workplace charging. spend thee place cars second-most amount of time is at work. with the industry to install charging stations -- that is a great example of partnerships that really work and really help advancing the benefit for consumers and our environment. that is one challenge, the charging station. have you seen the growth of those? guest: this is a great topic. the realities are -- we have this wonderful benefit of these 80,000 plus owners with their permission to note their charging behavior. most people drive less than 40 miles a day.
cars and spend most of their time at home. we've put a lot of emphasis working with the electric utilities around the country on establishing protocols and best practices for home charging. that is where the cars are. specint --ars and spend the second-most among the time is at the workplace. host: is it a prohibitive for tople thinking now i have pay for putting a charging station somewhere near my home? atst: charging itself, even the low gas prices, charging still cost less. ultimately, the cost of the charge station at home -- all of our cars come equipped with the ability to charge off 110 volts. the same outlet you would plug a
lamp into. the cost is lower than if you did have to go to the gas station. host: the president was in detroit yesterday for the auto show. a lot of talk about driverless cars. will there be driverless electric cars? guest: there will be. we will have a fleet of chevy campus by the end of this calendar year. foundation a great which to layer on additional technologies. whether it's additional connectivity or autonomous. host: why is that? guest: it provides a great base. car with no emissions and nearly silent
operation, you can put them in motion without having to address , withoutipe emissions addressing any noise issues. this provides a great platform to build on. host: patsy is first in greenville, tennessee. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? i disagree with the electric car system because people that doesn't make very much money will be able to avoi afford a battery. my cousin has one of those cars. its $2000 to fix it because the thing blowed up on the side of the reoad guest:. guest:we are proud to say that
the batteries in our electrified motorss that general -- wees our warranty really stand behind it. i talked about the battery lab we have come to largest of any automaker in the country. it lets us evaluate multiple use cases. whether you live in tennessee or arizona or florida or minnesota come understanding how customers are using it and ensuring that, you end up with the performance and reliability you expect. host: how much are batteries to replace? i keep talking about our 80,000 plus owners. we have not yet replaced a battery for wear out. we continue to work on bringing the costs down. that is a question that frankly we have not had to address. based on a lot of background work, we make it reliable.
much?the volt costs how is $27,000.olt on that federal tax incentive. host: you get a tax credit. guest: you get a $7,500 tax credit. the volt is less pollution. when you compare the pollution created by the gas when the car is running versus the pollution create electricity used to run the volt, is there a comparison to see which one is less pollution? guest: great question. volt,he generation one which had 35 miles electric
range, we know from the data we get that 80% of the trips people more thane volt -- 80% of the time, it is an all electric trip. drive electric most of the time. with the extended range. if you want to go further, it is no problem. they have come to love it. about theon you asked environmental impact of making the electricity versus running the gasoline engine, that's been answered by many different forms. the edison electric institute has answered that quite well.
i encourage you to look at their response. the summary of that is coming in the end, the benefits of electric driving outweigh what it takes to produce electricity. n in michigan. go ahead. wondering,as just general motors is dabbling with engine-school magnetic -- we have the technology now to perfect that thing. guest: i assume you are talking about the electric motors. we have a tremendous team of engineers that design our electric motors. we have the manufacturing capability. for every car we produce, we go through the decision on are we
going to design it in-house -- that gives us the ability to research and invent and look at all types of motor technology. i'm really proud of that capability we happen our own house. host: ray is watching us in california. good morning to you. caller: good morning. are we not putting all of our eggs in one basket? losing sight of things like hydrogen power. the power retention materials are currently in use -- they have come a long way. , we are losing sight of the other potential energy sources. guest: great question.
more miles on a fleet of fuel-cell vehicles then any other manufacturer. we've been researching and developing in the fuel-cell world for many years. the not-too-distant past, we announced a collaboration with honda. we are taking to companies who had a long history in fuel-cell and have to mend his engineer strengthen combining efforts to expand the technology. onle i happen to be working electrified vehicles come we have a lot of work going on with hydrogen. which happen to use batteries as well. host: terry in pittsburg, kansas. caller: hello. host: welcome to the conversation. caller: the two questions i have -- i'm a 30 year experienced mechanic.
here's the two things they have not ever told about electric beagles. -- electric vehicles. the new battery costs $5,000 every five years. costs $45 a month to charge your car at your house. milesdrive my car 22,000 for what it costs for your new battery every five years. we will get a response. guest: the first thing i would voltabout -- the chevrolet is on the road today. there's more than 80,000 of those cars. it was launched in 2010. it is 2016. we have yet to replace a battery for wear out.
we keep improving that. we are very proud of what we have on the road today. we have worked with a number of utilities across the company. to try to get things like fixed rates for charging. ,f you think about $45 a month there's a lot of people that would be happy to have a gas bill that was only $45 a month. withntinue to work utilities to find great programs and ways to benefit consumers first and make the cursorily affordable to operate. host: default has not had to have a battery replaced for wear out. what have you had to have a battery replaced for? guest: are batteries are very modular. rarely would you ever see a complete battery replacement. we strive for great quality.
lisbon to defects per million. peress than two defects million. we have the small occasional fastener loose or connection not tight. -- things people wear out worry about is where out. t. wear ou host: what is the lifespan of a full battery? we warned it for eight years and some states until 10 years. warrant it for- eight years. caller: good morning. i have a bolt. i bought it in 2011. i work about 15 miles away from my house. i never, ever buy gas. i have a charger in my house.
i would use a charger at work. you don't have to think about it. it's like driving a regular car except that you don't have to buy gas. unless you are going way out of your neighborhood. i buy gas when i go to the desert or the mountains. my daughter bought one at the same time. she never has to buy gas. contribute -- we decided we did not want to contribute to the fossil fuel industry. in california, we can get into the carpool lanes. is, are they going to make a light truck? that would be incredibly versatile. host: we will take your question. guest: i want to thank you and
your daughter for being full to owners -- volt owners. your belief and algae is what we value the most. of theplanation day-to-day operation of your car , i will not repeat because i could not have said it better myself. as far as future product programs, we continue to evolve. we don't announce those things too far in advance. at the moment, we are highlighting the second-generation chevy pulled. -- chevy full. -- chevy volt. thanks again for being an owner. how are you responding to competition like apple and other technology companies -- apple is
making an electric car. tesla calls it an open secret. guest: we continue to develop on many fronts. it is a competitive environment. we like the challenge and we keep moving forward. this tweet -- guest: great question. especially on a day like today in d.c. validate all of our vehicles to the same standards. car does not get tested to a different standard. we do our snow traction, ice traction testing just as we would any other vehicle. you bring up a question about how you clear your windshield. how do you keep yourself warm?
if you are plugged in, you have the option of your car will condition itself for the windshield off of the wall energy. you can serve all that is in the battery for your driving. you don't have to be plugged in for those to happen. having a large battery on board defrostu the energy to your windshield or warm yourself or your passengers. host: st. louis, missouri. corey, good morning. caller: i appreciate your involvement with electric industry. i appreciate general motors's syriaement in the central -- in the st. louis area. will there ever be a case where there will be battery replacement stations that the country -- throughout the country? guest: great question and thank
you for your comments about the st. louis area. that is such an important workforce with the chevy colorado and gmc canyon. which have been terrific products. they are flying off our showrooms. host: do you imagine battery stations all over the country for long-distance driving? guest: terrific question. ev, the battery is part of the lower structure. when you integrate those components, those in significant structural components into the architecture of the vehicle, the idea of swapping them in and out is not very efficient. we are taking a path of making them integral to the car, which
has a number of benefits. the floor is completely flat. contributing to the spaciousness , the easy getting in and out of the car. that is the path we are going down. host: how is that related to his question about long-distance driving? guest: the notion of swapping has been a proposal in a number of vehicles as a way to recharge or battery. -- our oemh competitors to collaborate on charging. there's some places where we need to compete and some to collaborate. all investment made in infrastructure benefits everyone. d.c.'s fast like charging which provides energy to the vehicles to give you 90
minutes charging and 30 -- host: it takes much longer to charge an ev then to fill a gas to fill a gas tank. guest: let's talk about charging habits. a lot of times, the focus is on charging from empty. you think about the we already know our 80,000 plus full to owners are driving less than 35 miles on a trip. the charging capability you could have at your home, it is less than two hours to refill. the practicalities are there. talk is around how you get a full charge. wisconsin, gloria, good
morning. caller: we had an electric car for three years and just loved it. it was adrian. i am so glad c-span is having you on and i am able to listen to you. it is just awesome. weant to tell you that there would be more technology out there. with our vehicle, we have a 100 mile radius. radius, because i'm from wisconsin, it is colder. it took a little bit longer to heat up the vehicle for the battery. that was a disadvantage.
you are talking about more miles and having the heat. we did not go to the 220. we never had a charging station. we have that wonderful car for three years. it was awesome. you're talking about more technology, liking to see maybe --a biggerehicle vehicle. hardly, another thing, we have solar panel. we are summit comes in through our car. it is a win-win situation. host: i have to leave it there. thanks for sharing your experience.
it is people like you help many others understand how this can meet their needs. you mentioned a number of things i want to respond to. first is the notion of warm-up. in the case vault at 200 miles, plenty of energy to not only warm you up but propel you for many miles down the road. i you are plugged in, and love your charging description, that you're able to meet all the energy comes from the wall and preserves what is in the battery to drive you down the road. chevrolete of the volt, it is an electric car with an onboard generator. you never have to worry how far you will go and how warm you will be.
the generator can help you with what ever you ultimately need. host: new jersey, clyde, good morning. i have a question. solar panels. i remember back in 1972, they had an oil embargo. great question. the reality is inefficiency. range is important. we need to put energy on the car in a form factor that fits the car. we support the solar challenge, many universities across the country participate in to advance the technology. we have the largest installations of solar in the country at our manufacturing sites.
yet not made it to the car due to the efficiency of the energy conversion. electric cars popular in other countries? guest: yes. the volt was designed for a global market. we have not announced those yet. that is coming in the next few weeks. we work on charging being capable. we want to meet the needs of consumers around the globe. one last call, jack, texas. i am also a volt owner. 2013. it runs complete we off my solar power system. i have a six by seven kilowatt solar.
what are the plans for vehicle to grid, to hope the car up to the house to supply the grid with electricity. great question and thank you for being a volt owner. we appreciate that. a lot of work going on with utilities. we wanted to be safe. we have a lot of advanced engineering projects. that is the area was any good collaboration in common standards to benefit consumers. host: pamela fletcher, we appreciate the conversation and for you joining us this morning. guest: glad to be here.
host: when we come back, we will talk about the supreme court passes decision to take up president obama's action on immigration. andill talk with tom jawetz get his thoughts on the case. ♪ >> american history tv airs every weekend on c-span re-. all day saturday and sunday. some highlights for this weekend include saturday, oral histories, an interview with armstrong williams, part of the as orations in black leadership project. >> people recognize my father because he had a strong reputation in the county.
said, ied my hand and i hear that you are a racist. [laughter] he said you set what a bright young man. what greater you in? when you graduate high school, come work for me and decide if i'm racist or not. >> reenactors re-create the boston tea party at the old south meeting house in boston. sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the withrepublic and campaign interviews with ronald ragan, george h.w. bush, john anderson, and howard baker, recorded by students in high school in new hampshire bearing for the first time on national television. at 4:00 on railamerica, -- reel photos andchival
videos. we will look back at the arabian crisis, including president carter's announcement of a failed rescue attempt and the release of hostages judgments after ronald reagan was sworn into president. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: tom jawetz is the immigration policy representative at american center for progress. how we gottalk about to the point where the supreme court said we will take up the case. yes.: november 20 14, the president announced he will take executive actions on immigration. a whole slate of reforms were announced. one was a memorandum by jeh johnson who essentially said he
will create a process through which certain people, unauthorized immigrants who were brought here as children, or unauthorized children who were the parents of citizens or green card -- green card holding children who have been here for five years or more, could come , past background checks, and get a temporary reprieve from deportation. shortly after, texas led a state file a lawsuit host: 25 states joining in on that. these governors contend from usa today yesterday, that the president lacks authority to immigrantsocumented by executive fiat. there are quotes here from the chief counsel of american center for law and justice who says president obama is not a king. presidents do not get to change the law. guest: one thing that is
interesting about that is there is strong legal authority and precedents for this. the strongest historical precedent for the actions taken by the administration were actually taken by the reagan administration in the first bush and 1990.tion in 1987 right after the attack and of the immigration reform law that offered a path for legal status for immigrants, that intentionally left out another .asa folks president reagan and expanded by president bush, they created a family fairness policy that also applied to possibly 40% of the population. the actions taken were similar and the scale was similar even then. one of the interesting things, there is a long history of past
precedent, going back to eisenhower, of every administration using executive authority on immigration. this is authority delegated by congress to set policy and priority in action, necessary to enforce immigration laws across a whole slew of issues. democratic presidents, republican presidents, they have largely not been challenged at all or have not been as controversial as this is. theoes to how fractured country is on many issues, this being one of them. we want our viewers to weigh in on what the president decided to do by executive action. democrats -- republicans -- -- twitter or facebook -- let me read from the same critic of what president obama did. he wrote this.
that our nation's immigration laws are complicated and in need of reform through the legislative rockfest but different policy preference do change theense to law on his own. his actions are not constitutional, they are unlawful, and they violate the separation of power. the reality is the president may not violate the constitution if they get -- if they do not get that way. it is that simple. there is one area in which we agree, the immigration laws are broken and need to be reformed. before the center for american progress, i was in the house committee and worked two years with a bipartisan group of legislators in the house to try to get immigration reform enacted into law. there are people on both sides of the aisle who are didn't -- genuine and want to engage in the issue and i down the road, we will see the reform happened here and we have to.
having said that, the authority for the executive action we're looking at here does not come out of the fact congress has acted. it comes directly from the fact congress has acted. decadesion laws for provided the secretary of homeland security was previously the attorney general, has the authority to adopt rules and policies or any other such actions necessary to enforce immigration laws. when the department of homeland security was first created after 9/11, he created a new authority directing homeland of death to adopt a national immigration enforcement policy and priority. enforcementgration all see he is establishing that the if i will do my job of trying to maintain public wiki and national security, understanding there are 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country that also have to
maintain border security, and we have the resources to remove a small fraction of the 11 million people, i need to set some immigration priorities and the best way for me to target is to take some folks off the table, essentially. by his distraction, not for me to rely on at the end of the day, but essentially saying i want to focus my energies and efforts on those who are high ird. what will the supreme court rule on exactly? what is the question before them? are a number of questions. the threshold question is whether or not the states have standing to file the lawsuit, whether this type of claim is admissible. it is the type of thing courts should get involved in. that is already an important threshold. if the state do not have standing to bring the lawsuit, there is no lawsuit.
an interesting fact about the way the cases coming forward is the reason -- the district court's only found texas stanek. years ago,is because they adopted their own state law or subsidyially pits of driver's license to determinations made under federal law. they decided what a prison gets deferred action under federal immigration laws, they will issue driver's licenses at a subsidized rate. because they have chosen to offer this subsidy to the classic people who will be affected by this policy, they say they will lose a small amount of money for each person who gets a drivers license. cumulatively, they lose a little bigger amount but still a small amount in the grand scheme of things. that goes to their standing to make this case. byy effectively will be hurt
this action. they need to show they have suffered an injury before bringing it to court. about theting thing standing issue, an issue chief justice roberts will be focusing typically want to think of themselves as being in the business of getting involved of when there is not an injury and when litigants are coming before the court and having a policy disagreement, that they will step in and get involved. change in be a standing if texas is able to essentially manufacture standing by adapting its own policy tied to federal determinations and when the federal government adopts a policy decision, whether in immigration or another area. host: what is the take care clause and all of this? guest: the court may find --
with the district court also found was there was standing in the district court found the administration, if they want to adopt the policy, they should have gone through an informal rulemaking process and they should have provided a notice and an opportunity for the public to comment and only after reviewing the comment and issuing the rule, would they be able to essentially put the policy into play. the circuit court took it a step further and said even if you went to that process, it would not be permissible under the immigration law. i disagree strongly with those findings, but that is what two judges found. two judges disagree with them as well. but that ended up still being the decision below. the next issue neither of the courts below addressed is whether or not even if you set aside the statutory question, is there a question under the constitution of whether the president is failing to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, the duty created by the constitution for the president.
there are great legal scholars who looked at the question and day, courts do not actually rule on that issue and it is not a claim you can even bring. by the not an accident president, but the secretary of homeland security who does not under theame security constitution. there are a lot of questions regarding the merits of that. but i am encouraged by that, that the courts decide on their own to say i want briefing on the issue. the court may well not rule. they may or may not rule on it, but by inviting briefing on that issue, they are setting up a situation where they could avoid ping-pong where the case goes back to the district court again to rule on it once more, at which point we do not know what the new administration's position would be on the house is or what they are us ashley's laying is, particularly given the legitimacy of the lower court ruling has come under a lot of public scrutiny, they will take it upon themselves to
say, we will be the determiner of whether or not the policy will in fact going to affect. on theith all that table, we will turn to viewers. robert in virginia, independent, you are up first. go ahead. think a lot of people do not believe -- supreme court especially with recount votes in florida, and pouring all their money and everything. they do need to do something. our neighbors and friends, we .eed to help support them it has been going in the wrong direction for years and years. i hope it turns around and you all have a great day. host: what have each of these
justices said about the case coming before them? guest: to my knowledge, none of them said anything about the case. that would be a concern to me if they did. certainly one thing, i agree there are a number of decisions by this court that are concerning, certainly to me and us enter of american address, no question. will say immigration, the court has looked at the issue and really understood complexity. a very important case for this case is a lawsuit for a case decided in number of years ago in the city of arizona and acted immigration laws, 1070. what the court said when rolling on the case was that immigration laws are essentially in the province of the federal government and it is not for states to interfere. that is one way in which this action is comparable to that action. inther important statement
that arizona decision where it struck down most of arizona law is that the federal government has broad discretion to decide whether and how sue removal at all for individuals, that the court recognized even if the person may be deportable, there may be a whole host of reasons the federal government decide not to support removal for that individual and these are decisions entrusted by -- to the federal government, it could be immediate human concern. much of the reasoning the courts have laid out in that decision really goes to what the families themselves are going as well. you have potentially up to 4 million people who are the parents of americans or residents who have in their longtime and played by the rules and are hard-working individuals whose lives will be turned upside down and not just their lives, but family members if they are removed from the country. the center of american progress is working late last year to
report -- it estimated -- we talk about 3.7 8 million people who could be eligible to supply parentstation for the of citizens and we do not spend much time talking about their actual family members who also stand to benefit tremendously. 3.7 million parents, but about 6.3 million u.s. citizens who live in the same household as those individuals. we are talking about millions upon millions of families who live by the policies and that goes to immediate human concerns the court is hinting at at these other cases. is watching on our line for democrats. you are on the air. caller: yes. i am wondering what you think them the cost of sending
-- i'm thinking about what do you think about deporting some of those people? would it cost the government more money to send them to their country? i think that is a great question. people have done studies on what the cost of mass importation would be. it is billions of dollars to the u.s. economy, billions of dollars in order to take people currently in our societies who go to our schools, removing them from the country. when you hear so many people talking in the current cycle about mass deportation and trying to implement what that would look like, i think you would want to think about what the cost would be, the human cost.
that is one thing you will start seeing more of your it he will start hearing more of the in aies stories affected positive contributions they have already made to the country and contributions they would like to make if they were provided a small measure of stability. we're talking with tom jawetz. keith, tennessee, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not understand what president obama can keep pushing executive orders when actually most of what he is pushing through, he has no right to. not saying all of the people coming to the country are bad people, but if they cannot come in properly, do what they're supposed to do, leave
when they're supposed to leave, they know better than to start families here if they had not come in through the proper channels. the law and then want us to feel sorry for them. they sure would not let us, and american, go on another's soil and do what they do. and then take care of us the way this country takes care of their children, and then gives them the benefits taken away from our children and our seniors in our native americans. eyes andy open their take care of the native americans that are living so poorly? come on. host: ok. guest: i think what you're getting at and i agree with some of what you're saying in terms of our country passes immigration laws and the system is broken.
if there was a reasonable way for people to comply and get in see, i think you would people do that. i'm reminded, years and years borderen the head of the patrol was asked to testify before congress about immigration enforcement, he was of, -- he wason essentially asked what is the number one thing you could do to secure the border and be more effective at border security. essentially, to enact immigration reforms to have a legal pathway for the people now coming through the ports of entry. you want to have a regulatory system that mirrors reality and would allow lawn was meant to do essentially chew -- do their job. in terms of immigration enforcement right now, the news
came at yesterday that the number of unauthorized immigrants in the country's even further down for the first time in many years, below 11 million. border crossings continue to be at historic lows. there are a lot of positive signs in terms of general immigration enforcement. the people we are talking about are not people who today or tomorrow are deciding whether to come to the country. they are people who have already been here for five or more years. on average, 10 years. they have children here and the question is what to do with them. i think policymakers can and should decide what we want to immigration system to look like. they should be reforms to address matches populations here now, but future immigration as a country. that should be a policy debate congress should be engaging in right now. yesterday, homeland security officials were up there congress thed told
federal government does not investigate 99% of all illegal immigrants who enter the country legally but then overstay their visas. those whose names pop up, serious criminals draw scrutiny but most of the rest of the 500,000 visitors who did not leave when the time was up in 2015 were deemed non-priorities. the countries they're coming from, iraq,ng afghanistan, and yemen. give me thoughts? this is an area of bipartisan interest and concern. it has been the law for a number of years that the united states and the department of homeland security should be able to track people when they enter and when they leave the country. we checked people out the same way we checked people in. in many ways, it really is a press question of how you put such a system in place.
understanding we have many ports of entry, harder than the airport. it is tricky. the fact they were able to produce this report is encouraging. 9/11, to track people who are leaving, provided a tremendous amount of information when figuring out when oaks stay or leave. another part of the report 90% of theerage people who get here and that leaving. we may not right now investigate and go after the vast majority of those who do overstay, when he will decide who you will go after among those overstaying,
they are prioritizing those who are a threat. all, we want them to prioritize people who appear to pose a threat. anytime they will demand perfection, 99% effectiveness, the question is what is the cost of achieving that. david,ore calls, independent, tennessee. caller: good morning. if the supreme court rules in the president's or, don't you think there will just be that many more attempting to get over here illegally and live because they think, so many lived there in illegally, we will do that, too. our border control cannot control it. host: i will take that point. borderin terms of
patrol, it is relevant to know the best estimates are the 40% or even more of people who are now here unauthorized did not come to the borders. they came here legally on a visa and overs they. andkdown that number understand it does not speak directly to the border security havets and that we do robust manpower and technology ever had.border we a far more secure border than we had decades ago, and the number of people coming here legally continues to be at a 40 year low , basically. it is one background point. in terms of whether it incentivizes people to come in the future, i have a hard time believing that and a lot of people look at other policies in recent years have shown that is not what motivates people to come to the country are no one
really comes hoping you can then live in a precarious state for a number of years and then maybe one day you will live the lottery. it is not have people think about their options. host: fewer than 11 million illegal immigrants in the united states, the number have dropped below, by not that much. it is the lowest since 2003. sharper declines have contributed to the overall numbers. even as immigration from central america where families have flocked to the border in recent months, that is on the rise. that is you are looking at two different trends. that the border issue -- is secure and illegal immigration is up, because we have seen people from honduras and guatemala coming to the country and being apprehended i border patrol. that is a different thing than historic illegal immigration patterns. what we know from the population
is they're coming across the border and presenting themselves to border control. unconscionable levels of violence and city -- civil society breakdown. they are themselves a refugee population. population is a distinct and the street population. itn you look at the rest of and look at lowe's being down generally an overall, the country slightly going down, there are a number of factors for that. it is important to keep those numbers in mind because while there has been a public perception the border has control because of the news reports we're getting, we're losing sight of the big picture, that illegal immigration is down. in ohio, on the
line for democrats. aller: i would like to make comment. i think spanish speaking people were on this continent before any white man stepped foot on this land. i think they should come here anytime they feel like it. there should not be any immigration laws that would keep them out of this country. host: let me get marry in from south carolina come a republican. caller:h hi. i will tell you what. i hate anything that has the words american progress in it. and i haterals anything that has to do with comprehensive. every time something like that happens, the american people get it right in the back with a
knife from their government. to stop theay illegal aliens coming in here. have them penalized for hiding these people. if they cannot -- i am busy. sorry. anyway. if people cannot get jobs here, they will leave and deport themselves. check their payrolls and back roles for the last 10 years. the people illegally here ought to be fired. i definitely want to engage you on that point. i think we should all support american progress. if you do not, it is not a good recipe for the future of the country. in terms of e-verify, that is a great thing to talk about. it is an electronic verification system that essentially
modernizes the process for hiring. it is a way to electronically verify a person is authorized to work. there are a number of concerns with e-verify, false positives, people appear to be authorized to work when they are not, false negatives, people including american citizens unauthorized to work and lose job opportunities. i have a former coworker trying to be hired for a subcommittee of the house itself, even though she was a citizen, was not verified to work. things have been improved significantly. every serious comprehensive immigration reform proposal that has come out in the last 10 years has included e-verify in it. if immigration reform had been enacted at any point in the last 10 years, we would already have a complete e-verify system in place right now. if your concern is trying to aost enforcement and have
regulatory system that matches reality, then immigration reform would be the way to do it as you would have that in place already. when i think about immigration reform and why that has not been enacted, there are different pieces of copper has it immigration reform packets that you could conceivably an act on their own, but it creates a lot of anxiety among people both on the right and the left about is somethingt that you want to travel separately or something else with it. it is policy disagreements about how you want the package to be formed. e-verify is the one part of the package that you literally cannot do on its own. unless what you want to do is have a company as a system in place to kill the u.s. economy. mandatory e-verify across the itntry, that is the impact would have on the agriculture or two thirds of the workers on the
field are not authorized and you have millions upon millions of american jobs supported upstream and downstream by those workers. you see similar damage across a number of industries. if you want to hear a huge sucking sound from our economy, mandatory e-verify is the way to go. independent,, an florida. good morning and welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i cannot believe a word you are saying. i was reading an article not too long ago. two weeks ago. about the cost of illegals in the country. article, theyhe called the department and asked for a monetary figure and when they put it together, it came to 333 billion dollars to support illegals. according to what they pay for
health care, eating, housing, education, and incarceration. california itself has 30% of the prisoners who are illegal. throughout the country, it is probably somewhere around 18%. overyear, the fbi arrested 100 illegals that had associations with terrorist groups. it goes on and on. and the lady talked about going to another country, what they would do. mexico itself had its army not to theg ago deployed southern border with a shoot to kill policy for the illegals coming into their country. then they realized they could rob these people, charge them an entry fee, and then escort them right to the northern border so they could sneak into this country. these are the types of people we are dealing with. host: we will get a response. guest: there have been an number of economic studies about the cost but also the economic
impact that unauthorized immigrants in the country have broadly. there are certain macroeconomic analyses you need to do in order the jobs they are in, the wages they are paid, the sales taxes they pay as well, the job growth, broadly, that they generate, being not just workers but also consumers. they are also purchasing goods and generating additional economic activity. on the whole, virtually all economic studies from professionals, economist, do say that they are not only a net positive, but a very strong net positive, to our economy. executive actions, the council of economic advisers, they found they would be an even stronger boost to the economy. by thethe projections council on economic advisers is you would see about $200 billion over 10 yearsgdp
from executive actions. even greater growth of gdp. found fortisan cbo immigration reform. there are ways you could capitalize even further upon the economic growth this population brings. agree theylargely are a strong positive for the country. host: brooklyn, airline for republicans. caller: thank you. this is not about immigration. the matter is about the powers of the executives over congress. the court probably believes the president is in cahoots with who are on the side of copper has it immigration. i agree with the gentleman. our borders are not in ksp or they are organized.
you do not get tens of thousands of women and children migrating countries -- this is organized crime, a total .reakdown thank you. i will say, that is the question for the court to decide, whether or not this is an overreach. if the court gets to that's cap, there is a concern on whether texas has the authority to bring this kind of lawsuit. my response to that generally would be, the secretary of homeland security delegated congress to set policy priorities. it is not just this congress or
this administration that decided to get deferred action and tempora protection from deportation, which would have the ability to temporarily apply -- authorization, that came out in 1981 under the reagan administration and went through a formal rulemaking process. against the backdrop of that existing rule, congress enacted a law in 1986 which explicitly recognized that a person is not an unauthorized worker for the purposes of unauthorized employment, if they have been authorized to work by the attorney general. congress recognized there is a regulatory framework to allow people granted work authorization through the regulatory process to work. congress essentially codified that any administration put out a new regulation. the process we are looking at is not a new process by the
administration. it has been in decades and decades. i think that is one of the points the courts will talk about. host: milwaukee, a democrat. hi. my question was, since we have a problem with illegal immigrants, the criminals and everything, what about the ones that contribute to society? what will we do for them? peter in mount pleasant, south carolina, independent. good morning. caller: hi. a constructiony site, the area i live in is undergoing major real estate construction right now. i noticed something was wrong with this one site. was the first time i saw a black person actually working on a construction site. all the workers there were illegal immigrants.
furthermore, the unemployment rate among blacks is 38% between ages 18 and 80 -- and 35. we are bringing all of these people in half of whom have no high school education, a high illegitimacy rate, and there is a substantial number of them in our prisons. how they arere out net pluses to us. we have immigrants coming in with advanced degrees who contribute to our society. i understand that but i don't get it. the blacks have a high unemployment rate between ages 18 and 35. it is like 50%. why are we bringing in people without a high school education who right now -- the labour party decision nation rate is 62% tiered it is low. the unemployment rate does not reflect reality. labor economists across
the board have looked at the issue and almost without exception, they have found unauthorized immigrants in the there arerking, possibly 8 million of the 11 million who are in the workforce. they do not drive down wages or increase unemployment among native one workers. there is a good reason for that. they are part of the economy, they are themselves consumers. by starting bob -- starting jobs and businesses and create jobs, they are generating economic activity. i would say when driving by a i would try to check whether or not they are unauthorized or if that is something you know personally. that is the question. major labor economists looked at that and that is what they have found over many years. one more thing about on shipping or is him -- about entrepreneurism, studies again
find immigrants are far more likely to start image it -- businesses and jobs. the people you think of as not come industry did here because they were a really smart guy with a visa. they had a program that did not target people based on their skill set. we want to realize people -- my congresswoman, used to talk about how she came to this country people who have the get up and go to get up and go. the is a good image of who vast majority of them are. they're people who come to the country in search of a better life. they work hard and contribute to their families, communities, churches, businesses. should there be a better system in place to allow them to come in here through a channel that is more thoughtful and more designed to match the reality of
our needs in the country, yes. we need immigration reform through congress, no question. we want to look at the population as a whole and crediblehere is na contribution. town this are in week. the republicans were not able to block president obama positive plan to bring in more syrian refugees to this country. democrats blocked republicans launching a filibuster and they were five votes short of overcoming the 60 they needed to overcome the filibuster. vote: one element of that is that the democrats were willing to get that bill and debate the bill if republicans allowed some amendments to be considered. one thing the majority leader did not want allowed to consider was a vote on whether or not the members of the senate agreed with one of the presidential candidates that we should have a muslimimmigration --
immigrants in the country. chief presidential candidates returning to the senate for that vote, ted cruz and marco rubio in their voting as well. -- in there voting as well. tom jawetz, thank you. i appreciate your time. we will take a short break. when we come back, we returned to where we began, getting your thoughts on the government's role in the flint water crisis. we will put the phone numbers up to you can start dialing in. ♪ >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house and in the classroom. this year, our student cam contestary progress -- asks what the issue is that you
most want candace to discuss. --candidates to discuss. >> c-span pauses campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. beginning monday, february 1, at 7:00 p.m. eastern, we bring you live, pre-caucus coverage, with phone calls, tweets, and texts. on c-span2, we will have live coverage of the democratic caucus. be sure tuesday and join in on the conversation on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back to we want to get your thoughts this morning for the rest of today's washington journal on the government's's role in the flint water crisis. we will divide the lines regionally. --
tell us your stories and what you think about the government state, local, and federal officials as well all playing a role in this. flint was out in d.c. yesterday for the u.s. conference and they held a news conference where of course the flint mayor was asked about the situation. i will show you what she had to say. you will see in the video one of the protesters there protesting what happened in chicago while the flint mayor was trying to speak peerless into what she has to say about the frustration or her city feels about the situation. the minority community, a poor community, and our voices were not heard and that is part of the problem.
this has been going on for almost two years and the communities spoke up about this and nothing was done. they marched and pastors got together and it was not until mark edwards of virginia tech came that people even started listening to what we were saying. it took a year for us to be heard. she brought this added attention to this and made that comment and that is why together ande got put out a statement as well. this is a civil right. water is a basic human right and everybody deserves clean water. the headline in the washington post, the new mayor of flint talks of trust between the citizens and that city in that state and the government there. many of you heard in the state of the state address by governor snyder that he would be
releasing his e-mails from 2014 and 2015 related to the flint water crisis. he did so yesterday. take a look. staffers thought flint was not their problem. if you want to date through the e-mails, there on the governor's's website. you can go through 274 pages if you would like of the e-mails and memos and documents. it goes on to it we learned earlier from a michigan reporter most of them are not redacted but manyyou can read of the e-mails are from -- not from the governor himself. this is communication on a staff level. we heard from viewers out in michigan earlier this morning saying the governor should have to release his e-mails from 2013 as well because that is when the decision was made to switch the water source.
think of the government's's role in this? caller: thank you. who else is responsible other than the government? broken trust. the only thing i hear -- the only time i hear that nowadays is when a republican is responsible. allepa should have been over it. i live next to the mississippi river and i guarantee known drink out of the river without checking it first. thank you. host: this is from the washington post. the environmental protection agency could have disclosed the results of its water testing earlier but said, according to --the obama administration was asked about the epa's role in all of this. what it can say is clearly the
notification process is part of the problem here and the president is absolutely determined to figure out what went wrong, generally speaking. the president appointed a court nader for federal aid in the city. president did declare an up $59 forhat freed fema to come in and cover the cost of bottled water, filters, etc., for flint, michigan. let's hear from david in michigan. where is that? caller: about 40 miles north of flint. as far as the government, the local government scooted up and people should be held accountable at the state and local level. also, the residents have an obligation of their own from the road in. a man on tv, he just bought filters.
they buy these houses, renovate them and rent them to people who cannot afford them. where is their obligation to fix this? of the government to a poor family who has a home who cannot afford these things, their own pipes and that. give to these people so they can fix the houses. some do not have the ability but a lot of them live in a rented houses. they are. host: what do you think about the residents of flint? what should happen with these people? caller: the government should come in. if it is a slum, make them fix it. give it to them cheap so they can afford to have it fixed.
foreign money to foreign countries. no reason they cannot come in and help these people who just need to step up. let me ask you this, as a michigan taxpayer, the cost would be $1.5 billion. tag to replacece the aging water infrastructure. as a taxpayer, who should pay that? caller: the people who live there. let's face it. they have got to quit electing corrupt officials. they don't do nothing. to jail of them ever go and they commit atrocities on their own people. we give a lot of money to foreign countries. -- even these communities. if we get people in their who want to straighten this around, you know what i'm saying? host: we hear your point.
wes, tennessee, what do you think of this? like to thinkd all of these experts in all of these think tanks and all of , employing all of the people in america, i am 66 years old, vietnam veteran, and i've never seen so much citizens thatst used to pull themselves together and blame everything that comes down the pipe on the federal government. hands,u tied a man's anybody up there in congress got the right to call them a liar and then you want a demagogue man themake this flint governor. the state of the union was a
joke. are you talking about the state of the state address? stated the state of the rest from the governor host: we covered it on c-span. let's listen to what the governor said. your familiesr: face a crisis, a crisis you did not create and could not have prevented. i want to speak directly, honestly, and sincerely to let you know we are praying for you, we are working hard for you and we are absolutely committed to taking the right steps to effectively solve this crisis. to you, the people of plant, i say tonight, as i have before, i am sorry and i will fix it. no citizen of this great state should end you are this type of
catastrophe that should endure this type of catastrophe. government failed you, federal, state, and local leaders by breaking the trust you placed in us. i am sorry most of all that i let you down. you deserve better. you deserve accountability. you deserve to know the buck stops here with me. most of all, you deserve to know the truth. i have a responsibility to tell the truth. the truth about what we have done and what we will do to overcome this challenge. , i will release my 2014 and 2015 e-mails regarding flint. have answers to your questions about what we have done and what we are doing to make this right for the families of flint. anyone can read the information for themselves at michigan.gov/snyder. the most important thing we can hard andnow is work
work together for the people of flint. host: you can find e-mails as the governor said on michigan.gov/snyder. of e-mails and documents related to this water crisis. we will get your thoughts on the role of the government in this situation. the mayor of flint was in washington, d.c. yesterday and responded to the governor apologizing. karen weaver: it is a start. it has been one of the issues with the city, broken trust. and who do we believe. the governor doing that, it is a good first step because he will have to regain trust and confidence, so that is something that is a good start for him, is it enough, no. you do not regain trust within a matter of seconds because a statement was made, so this is something he will have to work on for a long, long time and
something even the city of flint has to work on as well. host: karen weaver, the mayor of flint talking at a news conference in washington, d.c. where the mayors were talking yesterday, you saw a protester protesting the death of a young black teenager in chicago. the new york times this morning reporting on the water situation and he e-mails the governor released. he did so yesterday. a top aid to michigan's governor referred to people raising questions about the quality of the water as anti-everything group, other critics were --used of turning worrisome complaints about water into a political football and worrisome findings about lead by a pediatrician were dismissed as data. that view of how the admin inspiration originally dealt with the water crisis in the black majority city emerged from 274 pages of e-mails made public eye the governor on wednesday.
in the new york times it says this, michigan house yesterday, approved $20 million in state funding requested by the governor to assist the city. flint led by an emergency manager switch the water in april of 2014, in part to save money with the e-mails showed was $1 million to two very 2 millioner year -- $ dollars per year. it led to a switch and the city's mayor at the time encourage leaders to -- the washington post says now -- to fix the problems, to top out at $1.5 billion. brian you are next. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: you probably do not have a map but you have to understand
that anything above saginaw, you have a gentleman from saginaw, north of flint. anything above saginaw, michigan is the finest drinking water on the great lakes. on the great lakes. none of them match it. that is from the straits on down . we have polluted it because saginaw is a big industry, dow chemical. general motors, they polluted the water's. anyone in michigan with half a brain, if you were sitting and making decisions would know, you do not want flint rivers drinking water just as you do not want the saginaw river drinking water. we have water in spades. what should be done is a study its drinkingt gets
water and how they have maintained it because they are downstream from all of this. that should be looked into. i do not believe that detroit is getting their drinking water from lake huron. we need to look at this even further. this is basics, kids in high school know better than this. there is no excuse for this. mariner, theret is no way you take any drinking water from the second a river or the foreign river -- i cannot or flintsaginaw river river. flint, at one time, because of general motors was almost as big as to try. you are looking at 100,000 now, saginaw is about the same with dow chemical.
they polluted that river. we have an island that we put the sludge from. it is embarrassing the unbelief -- beyond belief. no reason flint should have put themselves in this place and governor snyder, yes, this one is on your desk. your apologies do not mean jack. host: birmingham alabama, good morning. caller: i was calling about the mayor -- the governor. -- i think he should be put in jail because he knew all along what was going on. putting the city in bankruptcy.
state where from a the department had to go into bankruptcy. the citizens ended up having to pay for them, for what they did. all of the commissioners had to go to jail but nobody had to pay but the citizens. though citizens might have to get ready and pay for what was going on. thank you. host: keep coming in with your phone calls, your thoughts on the government's role in flood ater. -- flint w first, christina marcus is joining us to talk about a proposal put forth by a couple of lawmakers to ban fundraising. who is putting this forward and why? >> this was rolled out by a
congressman david jolly, a republican from florida, it is surprising because he is running for senate to replace marco rubio who is running for president. even though he is running in most -- one of the most expensive senate races in the country he wants to -- it to be the law of the land that lawmakers cannot personally solicit campaign contributions while in office. host: what is is getting at? we have heard members say before, i am retiring because i cannot keep up with the fundraising pressure because i feet -- that i feel in order to run for reelection. >>'s argument that the pressures of fundraising and the amount of time lawmakers have to spend dialing for dollars takes time away from legislative priorities. he argues that it would give billsore time to focus on in congress and not having to
think about it so much and prioritize their reelection prospects over taking tough votes on issues. host: an example from your stories, the first the triple c chair, steve israel -- dccc chair, steve israel talked about how much he had to do. guest: after he announced his retirement, he wrote a new york into op-ed laying out and how much he hated having to spend so much time raising money. he estimated he had to spend 4000 hours asking donors for money. he wrote that his new call times during his retirement would be on the phone with cable companies which he wrote would be more pleasant. host: where is this going to go? this is being rolled out by representative jolly and members of congress, reached a standing
ovation at the state of union when president obama talked about campaign finance reform. does this go anywhere? guest: probably not, most that mostike this members can rally around and they fundamentally agree with, they feel like there is not much they can do to change the system. feel they have to keep up with the amount of money they have to raise to stay in office. host: representative jolly running for the senate seat to replace marco rubio in florida. where does that race stand? in thejolly is leading polls, facing three other primary challengers. including another congressman. do well in the primary, what does it look like for the general election? guest: the two main democrats
running for the seat are congressman patrick murphy who is the establishment candidate and alan grayson, much more far to the left. a primary on the democratic side as well. way, it will be competitive through the primary and general election. jolly is self-employed -- self-imposed choice is not raising campaign contributions, leaving it to his staff, it makes a political point but it could hamper his ability to raise enough money. host: one race to be watching. thank you for your time. acura calls. our -- back to your calls, i would discussion about went, michigan and the water, what do you make of the government's role. rochester, michigan, tell us where that is. caller: 20 miles south of flint in the southeastern michigan. -- it scratch is
surservice -- service -- face. the emergency managers made the decision. it is astonishing how bad the rivers art that they could think it would work. with the governor, shrinking government philosophy and the roads in michigan are like a third world country in many areas and the governor has been playing a shell game with that. when he came in office he raise taxes on seniors and cut school taxes and gave tax breaks -- the old mantra with some of these gop governors. it has not been working. host: your thoughts about the ofools, on the front page
the new york times, the other challenge the governor has is that the school systems, quoting from one of the teachers saying we have rodents in the middle of the day, like they are coming to class. exactly, this idea of these emergency managers and cutting cost, they are not proactive about bringing jobs back and this is where the focus should be. they have been horrible stewards to the middle class. this is no different than washington, d.c., controlled by lobbyists and the insiders clubs. most of the decisions are made and laws are passed to enhance profits of some of these companies or the insiders. jobs shouldind of the government in michigan try to bring back? are the jobs of yesterday gone? the auto industry -- what kind
of jobs could they bring back? caller: there are still markets, some of the industrial jobs did not have to leave. and send them overseas there are tech jobs, it will take read of thinking but it is not just rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down, let's be proactive. this idea they can bring accountants in an cut costs, there are things and there are industries in the tech industry, things that can be done. host: on the detroit school system, the new york times reporting this morning, they say heat filled the cockroachesdy odor, settle about until they are squashed by students and volunteers. water drips from a leaky roof onto the gymnasium floor. the teachers have been protesting with sick outs to try
to improve the situation. the city and local government officials trying to put an injunction to stop the teachers from doing that. in the new york times it says that things have become so bad that district officials say the detroit public school system could be insolvent by april. caller: i am sure there are things they can do but i want to get back very quick -- this is the result of no industry locating jobs. four years, when people had jobs, every friday they got paid in the government got paid. vibrant,nities were jobs are so important. host: we will go to gary and wisconsin -- in wisconsin. morning, good
morning to c-span people, i appreciate the work you do. host: what do you think about the government's role in flint, michigan. caller: it is not just the government's role, i am from chicago and every line that is run to every home in the city of chicago is the same lead pipes that are run in the homes in michigan. it is the water. if you would follow the story, they have to put a corrosion inhibitor in the water to stop the corrosion of the lead into the lines. it is not the river water that caused the problem, it is the corrosion inhibitor they removed from the treatment. you will have this problem in every city in the united states that has lead pipes serving the homes. what was done by the unions because the unions wanted to , and theer jobs to do lead pipes are the toughest things to put into the homes and they were still doing that through the 1970's and those are all democratically run governors
and mayors in the cities that allowed the unions to tell them that they had to put lead pipes in versus copper pipes and they could have done copper pipes or bronze pipes but they refused because it was harder to put the lead in and out all of the cities are sitting timebombs. host: a lot of the cities with these older homes that have the lead pipes in the homes but also running through their property lines out to the main public service line. i think we lost the caller. edward in flint, michigan. good morning. tell us your story. was your water contaminated? township live in flint and supposedly we are still using the water supply from detroit. the problem that actually happened was made by a emergency manager and governor. the people of michigan voted that out because they said it
was unconstitutional according to the michigan constitution and the republican governor put it back in. the emergency manager has been horrible. they destroyed city like then harbor -- then harbor -- ben harbor. they can do anything they want. the only person with power is the emergency manager and he only reports to the governor. host: what do you think should happen? ofler: the department justice is doing an investigation and this will go into great detail about the policies, taxation, money that items, iused and other think people will find --
[indiscernible] think what has been going on in michigan, something will get done. if we can get attention on it. host: should the governor resign? caller: he is not going to resign. he seems to be a person who does -- have contact [indiscernible] it will be up to the people to vote him out. host: another michigan resident, what do you think about the governor, legislature, local officials and federal government? caller: i think that the governor and legislators are making poor decisions, not only did they raise the taxes on the seniors, except for the firemen and policemen. but they have a $540 million
surplus and they are asking for money? but the legislators have bought a building from one of their large contributors and are spending $130 million to remodel it for their new offices. it is -- they are not taking care of businesses -- business and their residents. they are thinking of themselves, they are numbers people. they are not taking care of business. they are not making sure that their employees are -- they are not listening to their residences and employers -- employees that are telling them what is wrong. host: what about the role of the epa? the regional epa person out there, ignoring the test results dohe plant --flint --
blame the federal government, president obama? caller: the president does not have control over local issues. paper, -- i read in the or heard on the evening national news that disaster money is only man-madeade -- not for problems, only for hurricanes and floods. host: disaster declaration but the president did declare an move money for fema to bring in. caller: to bring -- to pay for personnel to guide the local people, not money to be spent on new pipes. the man from chicago talking about lead pipes, my husband was a union plumber, pipefitter, we had cast iron, we did not have
on the pipes from the sewers anyone or pipes to the home. even when we built our new house in 1973, we had cast iron. on our old house that was built at the turn of the century, we 1900ave lead pipes, but in there were no plumbers and pipefitters. 1961 and that house in he was a plumber-pipefitter in 1966 and got all his licenses and he took out all of our lead pipes and put in copper. they still use lead pipes in the weder -- he told us when used water for brushing our teeth or to drink, we always let it run in the morning until they got really cold and then we used it. the water that stands in the
corrosivehe water is it can leach lead and that is bad for you. my husband has passed but we bought a new home a while back -- before he passed and out of habit i run the water before i make the coffee or take my blood pressure pill or brush my teeth. lead levelat the comparison, usa today with this graphic showing that in detroit perlead level, 2.3 in parts billion, it is cause for concern when he gets to five and look at flint, michigan, the lead levels they found at 27 parts per billion. let's go to joe in flint, michigan. good morning. contaminatedater
-- was your water contaminated? caller: mine is not. thank you for taking my call. get -- like to try to hello? host: we are listening. to try towould like get to the crux of the problem, everybody is blaming the governor and everybody else but i do not believe that is the problem. this is my opinion. we were buying water from detroit and every time the detroit system raised their rates, we had a councilman for the city, he has been there for years, he would not allow the rates in flint to be raised. what happened was we got in debt through detroit -- to detroit quite extensively. speechernor said in his that we change from detroit
because the rates were too high. we changed because we were not paying the bill. a letterent flint saying they would cut off supply at a certain time and nobody understands that that was a shut off notice because we were not paying the bill. if we had paid the bill, we would never have stopped getting water from detroit. this lead problem would not have happened. host: how much is your water bill? caller: 100 and something dollars per month. host: as a grown-up in the last couple of years -- has it gone up in the last couple of years? caller: not really. i do not have a problem, i have
extensive purifiers and do not have a problem. host: i want to get in a couple more headlines before the end of the show. a story you might have heard, a , private women are guys not to travel to 14 countries. -- pregnant woman are advised not to travel to 14 countries. on the front page of usa today, airstrikes write-down the islamic state. they have killed more than 6400 islamic state fighters in the past three months and the militant group is showing the effects of the losses. if you are following this story, usa today for more on that. let me go to gary in michigan. we will end today's "washington journal" a little bit early and bring you to capitol hill where they will take up the nomination of the army secretary. say, to paynted to
ok.: want to thank everybody for calling in this morning with their thoughts. we will conclude the show a little early because on capitol armed servicesty committee they are taking up the nomination of army secretary standing -- fanning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
many of us may be interested to our that we are confined attacks. more than a year into the campaign, isil's reach is growing and growing. the conditions on the ground in afghanistan do not warrant a withdrawal of u.s. forces. armed services committees meets this morning. we understand your mother is joining us this morning. , we hope you will take the opportunity to age reduce her -- to introduce her and any other family in attendance today.
ready forces.less the army will be cut down to 450,000 active duty personnel, down from 570,000. this was decided before the rise of isil. shrink, and we soldierse too few without proper training or equipment. readiness must be the first priority of the army. to army must respond unforeseen contingencies. readiness suffers as our army shrinks.
over one third of the combat teams are ready for deployment and decisive operations. the army is behind on modernization. they must modernize for 21st century warfare. our soldiers must be trained and equipped and must be able to win against arms maneuvers and hybrid warfare conditions and determined on conventional insurgents. smaller. is haveforces like engineers been reduced to levers compromising the ability to field forces. part of that is the legacy of
the acquisition record, which is failureof, tale designs,developmental taxpayeroo many dollars wasted." predecessor.your together with more than a decade of war, these lessons must improve the joint like tactical authorities passed into law for fiscal year 2016, open opportunities for the secretary and chief of staff to e.ad positive chang they have restored the morale of
the force in the aftermath of war.he annavietnam they have built an army that won the cold war and remove saddam hussein. i am deeply concerned about the dangers choice we are forcing army.our these are some of the major challenges the united states army faces. mr. fanning, if confirmed, you will take office with less than a year remaining in this administration. impatient if to be
confirmed as secretary. nation's soldiers need a secretary that realizes there is much to be done. >> thank you very much, mr. cameron. chairman. i would like to thank mr. fanning for his willing to serve. audienceer is in the this morning. mr. fanning has a wealth of experience serving in the department of defense, and the acting undersecretary of the army. prior to that, he was confirmed as the undersecretary of the air force and served as the chief management officer. undersecretaryty
of the navy. mr. fanning, if you are will bed, your tenure experienced to lead the army during a very critical time. the army continues to grow down army,,000 in the active 195,000 in the army reserve. i would welcome your comments on whether the u.s. could meet the commitments overseas. force.modernize the program for modernization has been challenged. many programs have been truncated or canceled. on the for two reviews on how the army can improve.
i welcome the decision to open position to service by women. there was an exception to policy to keep it closed. cane is no doubt that women engaged in ground combat, because they have been doing it for 10 years. three women have graduated from the premier training school for officers. the graduation rate was only 42%. people were men prior to that. these three women represent the army of today and the army of
the future. i look for two full integration and tear proposals and plans and ideas. thank you, mr. chairman. custom to ask several standard questions. i will begin them now and appreciate your answers. is important that the committee are able to receive testimony and other communications of information. dutiesu assumed any which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? mr. fanning: no, sir. i did resigned the position.
>> thank you. november 30, i notified president obama that mr. fanning 's appointment violated the federal vacancies reform act. without objection, a copy of that letter will be included. the senate takes with the utmost seriousness the responsibility to provide consent on presidential nominations. that is fundamental to the separation of powers between the branches. there are consequences with the nominations. until the senate gives its advice, no president and now many may conduct themselves in a way that would presume confirmation.
the guidance allows nominees to prepare for the duties and responsibilities they will undertake if confirmed by the senate. you have any comment? mr. fanning: i do not. >> he is now resigned from the position and no longer serving the acting capacity. andresignation has cured, therefore i believe this committee is prepared to consider consideration of his nomination. will you ensure your staff complies with deadlines to request, including questions for the records and hearings? mr. fanning: i will. >> will those witnesses be protected from reprisals? mr. fanning: they will.
>> you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communication when requested by the committee regarding the basis for any good faith denial in providing such documents? mr. fanning: i do. >> thank you. please proceed. to fanning: it is an honor appear before you today. if confirmed, on the fourth to working with them and congress. my mother is here today from florida. not even the threat of record-breaking snow is going to stop her this time. ng.we welcome mrs. fanni i hope she would provide the
same advice and counsel that i received from my mother. [laughter] mr. fanning: no shortage of advice from counsel. asgoddaughter has joined us, well. >> welcome. mr. fanning: nobody gets the opportunity to serve without the help of many people. this is true for me. i am fortunate to have many in this room with me today. i come from a family with long service in uniform. an uncle served a career in the air force. a cousin was an army ranger. i learned the importance of service at an early age. i ha have the privilegeve to work in all three military
departments, as well as the office of the secretary of defense, all after starting my career as a research assistance. i have seen the army from every seat of the table. i was that the chief management officer. i have worked on efficiencies and transformation in every part of the department of defense and the four working with this committee as it explores the next round of defense reforms. the army is a force viewed by too many as just a number. how long it takes to build an army and with as few casualties as possible. buildes a generation to an army.
few understand the many missions of an army. the army enables the joint fight and response to national emergencies. the greatest strength is of course it's soldiers. over one million of them in the active guard and reserve. 0,000 serving00 outside of the united states. training and fighting against isis and other terrorists around the world. if confirmed, these soldiers will be my highest priority, specifically making sure they are ready, fully trained, and properly equipped.
we must create an an environment where everyone can flourish. deployed,iers are they must have confidence we will take care of their families, and that we will take care of them when they come home. we must make the same commitment to the future force by investing now solely have the right capabilities for them when they are needed. i have worked along the men and women in the marine corps, navy, and i look forward to become family, makingy get the best men and women all of the support they need, a mission for which they freely volunteer. them to do extraordinary
things. thank you again for considering my confirmation. >> thank you, mr. fanning. a quorum is now present. pending military nominations. all them have been before the committee. is there a motion to report these 3178 military nominations to the senate? is there a second? all in favor say aye. mr. fanning, how many roughly army and other personnel are now in iraq serving there? mr. fanning: i understand the never to be roughly 4500. >> is there a status>> of forces
agreement with the presence of those troops? mr. fanning: not that i know of. >> not one that is been through the parliament of iraq. you were in the administration because we didn't have the status of forces agreement, so therefore it would be impossible to leave, yet somehow we have 4500 uniform members of the military, and nobody seems to be concerned about the fact that we do not have a status of forces agreement. i find that curious. me ask you a fundamental question. we are going to have to attack isis in afghanistan. are we winning?
mr. fanning: i think it is too early to tell. we are clearly putting a lot of pressure on isis. i do think we are making progress. 6400 fighters killed in the last few months. we have taken back ramadi. a great deal of work needs to be done. i do believe it is a long fight. >> to think we have any plan to take -- mr. fanning: i do not know the specifics of any plan, that we are moving in that direction. >> but you don't know of any specific plan? mr. fanning: i do not, but i do not think i would in my current capacity. >> you work directly for
secretary carter? mr. fanning: i do. >> he didn't know of any strategy? mr. fanning: on many different capacity than before when i was chief of staff. he has let me focus on this hearing today. i have not been in on any discussions on that. >> so therefore you wouldn't have any estimate as to how long it would take before we could retake mosul? mr. fanning: i do not. >> for the defense bill, it requires reduction of staff and cost savings by $10 billion over a five-year period. aff is too large
and redundant. some say this should be a single service staff. what do you think about the reductions and about such a fundamental change? mr. fanning: i think the first reductions, i've seen this in all parts of the department of defense and down impressed the way the army went about it. increase control for supervisors. i think this is something you never stop working on. reduction was a good start. i would like to see how we rationalize that reduction. the question about collapsing the staff inside the military departments, i think there is a great deal of potential there. protecting civilian control of
the military and making sure the what they need. if we keep cutting the headquarters, we're going to have weaker products delivered later. there is a potential between the military and ods and further out into headquarters in the field. >> thank you for that. your uniquely situated to play a key role. flat outith you, reductions is just the first step. it is like sequestration. it is a meat axe when we need a scalpel. i look forward to playing a role, given your background.
a source of great frustration. discontinued cost overruns on weapons systems. we made some reforms. you are aware. it still seems to go on. every time we need something, we use the expedited process, which we use for others. make that onewill of your top priorities. we cannot justify eliminating sequestration and increasing defense spending, which the majority of the members of this committee feel is necessary, given the nature of the events in the world today. it is hard to go back to our constituents when we have a $2
million cost overrun on an aircraft carrier and numerous programs that spent billions and never become realities, going all the way back to the future combat systems and the presidential helicopter. you are aware of them. we have to stop it. -- if we're going to have credibility, we cannot have these horror stories, and i'm sure you appreciate it. mr. fanning: if confirmed, i s and initiate -- it wa effective way for large programs, the bombers. and i think the reform in the ndaa. of this as well and that is injecting the chiefs into the requirement process, especially as it overlaps to help keep
costs under control. that is different than dumping requirements when you have cost overruns because you cannot afford them. so i look forward to implementing those reforms and think will help us grateful avoid the cost overruns that we saw in the past. >> thank you very much. again, thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve. given your prospectus in the navy and air force, can you outline what you think the most significant irony you would >> first i think for the army, readiness has to be the priority. 100%ld agree if confirmed that we need to make sure soldiers we are sending into harms way are ready and fully
trained and equipped. it would be priority number one. efficiencies.e the end result has to be maximizing combat power of what we have. that is a continual coloring process to make sure you are -- culling process and make sure that the ratio is as good as you possibly can. third is something i have taken very seriously is maximizing the idea of one army, a total force, active guard and reserve. we talk about the army going from 490 to 450 and that is just the active component. we cannot do what we are asked to do. if we just think in terms of an active component. we have to think more creatively going forward about how we operate as a total force. as i mentioned earlier, ul